Presidential Vetoes Of Pension Bills

Mr Sjietiktr : I desirc brlsfly to give some of tlie reasons why I think tl) house ougln to sustüin ts owu oommttteéa, tul why tliis 1I ahonld be poned and all these vetoed pension bilis reponed back lo the house at this stssion for its ti nul actlon. TUe resillen t has liad his day und his lieariug, not only before the house bilt before the country. The clerks of the penaiou üílke have furnished lilra witli :he reasons why the evidence upoii which tile coniinittec on pensiona reported tlicm favurably, aiid lipón whicli t lie housu passed tliem. It would leem froiñ wtiat ippears ín tenate report -iii in the cuse of Mary .1. Xottage (senate bilí 3005) tliat wheil the president referred to the pension ollice tor inl'ormation one huiidred and eljfheen house bilis and eleven senate bilis le dld not :isk for poiuts in favor of the jills, but only t'or objectlont to their approval. So that it is apparent that his examination was rather an ex parte than ín impartiul one. The instrueüons were as follows: Picase cause the same to be crilically exexiimined and report to tuis dupartment wbether Ín your opinión auy objectious to jheir approval are known to exlst. I n cases where objectíons ezlst tliey stiuuld bü speclllcally set furtli. The president's criticisms and objections, his partial and sometimos erroueuus statements, have gone ont to the country and have created public opinión, while the reporte of the committees of this liouse and the evidence upon wliich they are based are wliolly unknown to the country, and the greatest injustice is done to the painstakingand conscientious members of the pension conimittees. Mr. Speaker, for one I urn not iaclined to split hairs with the president upon the question of the exteut and oonstitutional limits of the veto power. Let it be rraiiled tliat as a matter of constitutional right the president niay return my liill to confcresê with his objectlong. He may return it for oonstitutional objections or on the arrOBud that the proposed legislation is defeetive or urinecessary. Tiie extent to which ho will exercise this prerojfative is largely i questton of taste, and we know the old maxim, de (icilibus non ent Mtpulandum. There can be no dispute about uiatters of taste hecause tliere can be no eomuion standard or staudpoint, and the taste of one president niay diirer from that of another. Linoola vetoed one liill In fouryears; Cleveland has vetoed one hundrrd bilis within tlnee months. But tliat is a matter of taste. and it mea-uies tho distance betwecn tlie two men in their jiulment of their relations to the law-niakiiifi power of the pfovernment. When Mr. Cleveland penned his letter of acosptanoe of the aotnination of liis party the peoole of the United States had no reason to expeet sucli extraordinary use of the veto power. Mr. Cleveland then declared that the offlee of president was "essentially executive in its nature.1' He saw "uolhlnjj in the cliaracler of the office" wiiich requlred from htm a statement of liis opinlons on matters which concerned the legislative braiich of the Government. Tiie laws were enacted by congress; the only duty of the chief executive was to enforce them faithfully. Hls conceptions of the presidential offlee seem to have Rreatly changed since then, and the question arises, was he right then or is he rirht now ? We appeal from Cleveland, president, to Cleveland, candidate. By those presidenta who live, in the era of the formation of the constltution, and who may be presumed to be most familiar with its spirit, the veto power was very sparingly used. The whole nuinber of vetoes fiom the foundation of our {lovernment to the present time was 10!), anaverage of about one and oneseventh per year. The president, in some of his veto mes8ages, assumesito know and to criticise the number o? members present in the two houses when some of these pension bilis were passed. It is hardly necessarv to say that the opinión of the court is the opinión of the whole court, unless a distenting opinión is filed. The act of the house of representatives is the act of the entile house, if no question is raised that a quorum bas not acted. In one of his later messages, that on the Francis Deming case, the president uses this language : The blatant and nolsy sclf-aisertlon of tliose who, from motives that may well be Buspected, declare tliemselves abovo all others tbe frlends of the soldier, cannot illscredlt or bellttle the cal m, steady, and affectlonate regard of a gratelul natlou. As this is addressed to congres?, it must be supposed to have some reference to some portion of the membershlp of congress. öuppose that one branch or the other of congress should send a message to the executive, in wliich it should assert that "the flippant, undignilied, and egotistical ¦elf-aasertion of the executivo who, from motives that may well be suspeeted, d;elares himself the special and infallible guardián of the pensioners, cannot discredlt nor belittle tlie calm, steady, nd ïtt'eotloBate regard of conjrress for tlie defenderá of lbo Tnion," would it be contended that such a message would be the courlesy due from tlie legislative to the executive department of the governmentr The president In all these vetoes asMinies that unde.r the poliey of our laws no one is peimioiiable bat, those disabled in the military servi and in the line ot duty, and who eau make that appear by )OHitive proof. Upon tlmt ))ropoitioii I joia dlstinct ainl complete issue wilh the president. 1 say that bas nevcr been the poliey of our pension laws, is uot now, and ncver will be. The soldier of the revolutionary war were rruuted a service pension without regard to disabïlity in the service or otherwise, without referente to dependence or otherwise. Tliia house has at this very gession passed a Meiican war kmisíii bilí by a vote of 157 to (ií), in wliich 121 demócrata voted iti the afflrmative and onlyll in the negative, by the terms of vvhich every man who was borne upou the muaterrolls even for one day, thoitüh lie nevor had a piu's scratch on liis skin, and never saw u day of illness, and though he inay be now in robust health and wortli a mili ion dollars, and bevond all need Of nitl of the governnieut, shall each receive a service pension (for no service it muy le) at the rate or $3 per ïnoutu as long as he lives. And does anybody suppope that If that Mexican pension bill bad passed the senate as it passed tbe house it WOU ld have encountered n presiden tial veto beeause the beneficiarles bad not been disabled in the service and in the strict line of duty ? I til you n:iy. Do you ask nie why ? I leave you to medítate upon that question. Vloreover, it has been tbe settled practice for severa! congresses past to pass hundredsol' private pension bilis for the very rewon that tlie claimants have not ii.in aiiic to make the requlrèü prooi at the pension office thnt tlieir disabtlltiea were incurred in the line of military duty. The 1 ist eongress pastea more than 500 of sueh bilis and, not one of tlïem was vilncd by President Arthur, beeause he lookcd upon eongiess as the hljlh cmirt of chaneery of the uation, to adjudge tbe ¦quity of eaeh particular case. I thercfore utterly and absolutely deny tbe trutli of the President' premises that i tnnn is not peiisionable unless he can prove tliat hfl was disabled In tlie military service and in the line of duty. In the name Of hnmanity and n itional tionor shall we be pieoladed as the supreme latv-miiking power trom making n luw t i i rit shall meet the exigency of individual cases that appeal to our sense of riglit and equity? Beeauee, for.sooth, a surjreon is dead, or a fellow-prisoner at Audersonville lias answered the last tatoo, r a record is lost, or comrades have been ssvept away, are our hands bound from lolnK siieh meager justice as we may? Shall we be compelleü to stand by in einJecility and hclplessncss and see our old veterans in tlieir age and feebleness and joverty go to the poorhouse and Ibis ireat Coiigress of the people's representa ;ives forbiddeu by tbe iron grip of tlie veto power from reaohlng out to tliem a a Supporting hand to steady their falterin;r steps and smooth their brief pathway tn tin; grave? God forbld ! It is not so. tt canuot be so. If we be truc men, true to our country, to our manhoo-i, and to lunianity, it shall uot be so! Our appeal ís to the people, who make and uumake presidents! I have spoken of the facilities of the connnitee on invalid pensions for investlgating pension cases. I now wishtoconIrast theiu to the presidents want of facilities, Ftfft. Heisburdened with maiiy cares, l)oth of state and domestic cbaracter. The erowds of " the hungry and tbirsty" dog htm and presa upon liiin by day and by nlffht Ufl Mas uil I he legislatiou of OODgrast upon bis bands for consideration as i'll as all liis pro[)er executive dutjes. Long Into the weary and wakeful honra of these sult ry suminer nlght he is ohllgnd to sit In his shirt sleeves to hunt out the il iw in soinc poor uidow's case - perhaps like thal ot Sallv h.nn liradley or Loulsa C. Breexley - over seventy years old, or be is obli;ed to rlse up at the voice or the birl in the early dawil, leaviug the bride of a foftnlgbt to lier lonely coucb for the purpose of running down "tbe inrenuity develoiird n the constant and persistent. attacks ttpotl the treasury by thoseclaimn;; pensions," as lie says in tbe case of that aallant soldier and democratie senator, John V. Farrig, of Missouri, whose bill is among tbc vetoed. It must be manifest from the very nature of the case, from the number of bilis presented to bim and tbe length of time given to tlu'in, that the president can give but a few minutes time to the cousideration of each bill, and that not to the evidence filed but rather to the brief of oujectious furnished by the clerks of the pension office. ¦ nd. Another disability underwhicb the l'resident labori is the want of experieuce in army 1 i fe. This is well illustrated in the case of Alfred Deanv (Executive Document No. 170), in which the l'resident concludes that "those saddles were ve-y danjrerous coutrivances." This is a brilliant stroke of humor, especially when aimed at the life-lonfj injury of a faitbful ollicer; but I appreheud that i f the iiicumbent of the l'residency bad riddeu in a few cavalry charges with drawu saber, or had been mounted on an artillery horse when its mate was torn limb from limb by shot and .shell, as I have scen thein, or bad even ridden a spirited horse under a good, warm nmsketry lire, as inany jfentlemen on bolh sides of this House have done, he might have found that being in the suddle was a dangerOUI thin;. Hut I ferbear. The case is not a supposable one. It miht have been well had it been otherwise: but, unfortunately for the country and the soldiers, he is totally wanting in that experieuce. The President also shows that be is liable to errors of fact. In this case of Joseph Romiser he vetoed the bill npon the ground that no claim had ever been made in the Pension Office, when in faet all the papers in the case were on file there. In the case of Carter W. Tiller the bill was vetoed upon the ground that the soldier was a deserter, wlien the record clearly showed that so far from deserting the fact was that he died a horrible death in Andersonville prison. Third. Again, he is greatly wantiug in a knowledge of tbe diseases of the camp. This is well illustrated in the case of Andrew J. Wilson, in whieh he says - and if in y other man had said it it would have been cruelly llippant when ipoken of au inlirin old soldier: Wlmtever else raay satd of clalmaat's anchlevenienU durlng hts short military careerlt must be oouceded thivthe nccunialnteil a gretit .leal or dtsubtUly. Had the iiresent incumbent of the Presldency himself been a soldier in tlit tield lie would have knowu that it does not take a soldier many months sleeping in rain and sleet, gnbststlng on villainous and half-cookecl ratlons, making forcee marches, weighted down with knapsack liavcrsack, canteen, musket, cartridgebox, and forty rounds of cartridge, am subjected to the terrible strain of the shock of batlle "to accummulate a good deal of disability." Asrain, in the case of William lüshop tlie President says: Tliis i'liiiiiutiil won enrolled as a Hiibstitute od "'¦ ttlb '1 iy oí Maroüj 1885 ; he was admlttcd to n post hospital ut IndlnniipnllH on tlie 3d day or April, 1S15, with the mc:imls; whh riTuuved to tliu City General Hospital, lo IniluiMiipollN, on Uiofltli day of May. [885; was returuiHl to dmy May X, lbti.5, and whs edout wlth adotnehment of unaslgned men an tlie lllh day of May, 1865. Flfteen years afler thls brllllant service nnd terrlllo enoounter wlth the measles, and oa theï8th day of June, 1HS0. the clalmant dlB. covered that hls attack of the measles had iorae relation to hls army enrollment, aud ttaal liUdlsease had "settled lu hl eyos, also erfecung hlssplnal column." Tliose who served Ia tho Army of the Potoiii;ic in the winter of 18G1-'G2 In front of Washington well know that many a grave on Arlington Heights Í3 teminted as the result of a "terrilic encouuter wlth the mcasles." And In view of certiiin otlier circumstances the sneer it "substitutes" inight well have been omitted. Fourth. In the next place the Presilent is deflolent in the uecessary medical xiiiiuledge whioh would enable hlm to udge with reason;ible iutelligonce of the irobabilities of certain disabilitles. Take, toe instance, the case of John vV. Farria, Uready alluded to. The Presidnt fairlv ïoots at the idea that Impairud visión and sore eyes could be the result of the general dubllity resulting from long ind exhausting diarrhuea. Contrast this with the report of the nodical examinlng board at Lebanon, Mo., October 21, 1865, as follows: We flnd tho conjunctlva of both eycllds .hlckoned and in a state oi ohronlc ltinama.lon. There la an opacityof oorneaof both eyes, resultlng frora ulceralion, whioh is of the nebuloua varlety. The vessels of the conunctlvaof the cornea are very much enlarged. The opacity of the left cornea extendí over the pupil and alinost completely obstructs tho visum. Tuat of the rlglit eye Is essextenslve, about two-thtrds. He cannot list umuisli the largest test type wlth the left eye, out wlth the right eye can distinguían lt at a distauce of 17 lnches. 1 Ir is totally lncapacltated for manual labor. He is In our pinlon entltled toa second-grade rating for In .lisiibility oaused by chronlc dtarrhea and rcsultlng general debility and sore eyes. This claimant enlisted at the age of nly flfteen served tour years by galautry rose to be a cominissioned offleer; was discharged at the age of twenty with m incuruble disease which hasresulted in jlmdiiess. Is it any wonder that in his indignation ind bamll latían lie should write to the St. Louis liepublican as follows: Ordlnarlly lt Is enough to be a vlcttm of lisease and consclous of approachlng permanent ditmbllüy or early dlssolutlon; but when thls is accompanled wlth the brutal parte udgmentof a President whom the sufferer ïas aided in eleclng ,tlie witlulrawal of persoual and politics! sympalhies and the rude nul vulgar t.'iunts of the press, lonly falntly llustrates the extrnordlnary dilemma lu wlilch I am placed. I have yet to flnd any medical man who denies that defective sight may result Trom long-contlnued ehronic dlarrhea. Take for a further illustration the case of Francis Doming (H. K. 2971), where the claimant after suffering from rheuin.itisui for many years bvcanie nlmost lotally blind. Ol this sad case the President says: Thereupon, and after nlneleen years had elapsedslnce hls discharge from the Army, a pension is clalmed for hlm upou a very shadowy alleitation of the tuciirrence of rlierimatism whlle in the service, coupled wlth the startllng proposttion that thls rheumatlsm resulted, just prevlous to hls application, In bllndness. Upon medical examlnatlon lt appeared tliat hls bltndness was oaused by amaurosis, whlch Is generally accepted as an affectiou of the optie nerve. The President scouts the idea that the blindncss eau be referred to rheumatism, because the medical pxaminer called it "amaurosis;" igOOliog the fact that amaurosis, whieli is an affection of the optie nerve may be produced by rheumatism. Ie the oase of William II. Beek (Executive Document No. 181), where it was claimed that epileptlc lits or spasms had resulted from tqe heavy liring of artillery oyer the niau's head, the President says: If thls illsi'iw' can be caused Id the marnier here detalled, lts manlfestations are such as to leave no doubt of 1U exlstence, and lt seems to me slmply Imposslble, tinder the circumstauces detatled, that there nhould be any luok of evidence to support the claim upon which this blll is predlcated. Doctors will dbagree, and I have yet to find a doctor who will agree with Mr. Cleveland that in a case of recent epilepsy, where the spasms are many days apart, "the manifestations are such as to leave no doubt of its existence." Fifth. His knowledge of military law seems to be as faculty as his knowledge of therapeuties, when in the case of James Butler (Executive Document 180) hesays in one sentence that the claim was rejected because "the claimant was on an Individual furlough, and therefore not in the line of duty," and in the very next sentence declares "that he was no Bense In the military service of the United States." Exactly how a man could be "on furlouglr' and at the same time "in no sense In the military service" g somethlng that passes my understanding. In this case, as well as in the Joseph Romiser case, he makes the further mistake of supposing that nnder the general laws of the United states a soldier has not been regularly muslered into the service of the United States. Sixth. Even more yet is he wanting in a knowledge of the liabits and qualiües of good soldiers. He f requently and grie vously coin plai ns of the want of a "hospital record." I do not think he appreciates as those who have commanded troops in the field do that it is not the men who have the most brilllant and voluminous hospital record who did the hard fightlng and are the inost deserving of pension?. Every man on this floor who bas commanded troops kuows that the brayest and best soldiers would rather fall in thelr tracks from exhaustion and be helped into camp by comrades than go to the hospital; and even when wounded would endure almost anything in quarters rathcr than encouuter the foul air and depressing inlluences of a hospital ward. The incumbent of the presidency has very fliuch to learn about soldiers. And lastly, uniese I greatly err, he has much to learn of the feeling of loyalty and the spirit of patrlotism which inspired our soldiery, and whlch is worth more to this nat .ion than all its millionsof eold and silver piled In the vaults of the treasury. Take the case of that old man, Nathaniel Breezeley, the old farrier, whose widow's bill among these vetoes. At the age of 60 years he heard the cali of his country. He wanted to have some share In the grand and patriotic work of upholdIn its tlag and saving the union of the states to posterity. So, while the young and strong and the prosperous hesitated, the old man said to his wife, "Louisa, I believe I must go. I've got a good deal of ttrength left yet, and il the old tlag must go dowu I will go down wlth it. And if anything shoult happen to me this government will see that youdon't come to want." 8o heshouldered his musket and marehed in the grim ranks of war. He thought he could endure the hardship, and for aycarhe stooc at the post of duty like a man, as best ht could. But " he accumulated a good dea of disablüty," and at the end of a year he was mustered out as the report of Colone Matson, the cbairman of the committee say-i, "a wreek of hls former self.'' The old man died at length, and now hi aged widow, past seventy, dependent upon Jliarity, recommended by tbe governor of tier state and by ex-Senator Joseph E. McDonald, comes hers with trembliiiK Hands and tottering steps- comes Mere to isk of the jrreat, rich government to whicli lier huabmid s;ave the remnant of liealtli ind life to assist lier in eking our lier few remalnlng days with a paltry I)ension of 12 per month and the president of that country says to congress, "I forbid !" I would to God that some younger and stronger men had possessed that saine spirit ol patriotlsm whicli the old man Bee.eley had, and which led him to the lenlous edge of battle. Stich patriotism s not bo superabundant in these duys th.it we can afford to sneer at it or refuse to ecognize it or reward its loyal sacrilices. It was not so we promised these brave men when tkey went out to battle. It WM not so we promised them when they turned their backs upon home and wife aiul child whom they mlght never sec again ; urned away from all the brightness and sweetness and hope of life, to do, to suffer and, f need be, to die in untold and unspeakable anguish for the ilagof their alegiance and the country of their lovi:. We told them to go without fear and without faltering for those they left bchind. We promised them tliat the nation would e husband to thewldowand father to heir orphan chlldreo ; tuut the nation would raise their helpless ones in its great stroni; arms, and bear them to its heart of ïcarts. Under th.it promise thev went out Under Uiat promise they trod the red and ilippery fields of carnage down to the blood-besprinkled doors of death. Their work is done their duty is fulnlled. I5ut the wrecked and maimed, the widows and the orphans are with ui still and claim our belping baad. May God help us to be true to the promses we pledged when patriotUm was more ban gold, when loyal sacritice waa more ban place or power, andj manhood was worth all that a nation had to give.